Trump's wall idea is dead

[toomuchtime_]

Trump abuses his power and makes it to a military issue -

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN THEN?

Such a move is sure to spark a flood of legal challenges questioning the president's authority as well as whether the situation at the border really constitutes an emergency. Trump has been trying to press that case in recent days, insisting the situation qualifies as a security and humanitarian "crisis."

Of course it's a military situation. The US military is force to guard the border with Mexico because we do not yet have the smart fence the President wants to build and that the Democrats wanted to build right up until President Trump said he wanted it, too.

 

[Siete]

It does not. A law cannot override the Constitution. Could Congress pass a law removing judges on a majority vote instead of impeachment as outlined in the Constitution? Truman's attempt to invoke a national emergency was overturned by the courts and building a wall would be a assault on our Constitution. The courts have to intervene and make this determination.

The Court did not question Truman's power to declare a national emergency, it denied him the right to confiscate private property since he had not provided adequate justification under existing law to do so. At the time, there was no National Emergency Act so what powers the president had under a national emergency was unclear. Today, the National Emergencies Act details exactly what powers the president can exercise under a national emergency, so the Court has no jurisdiction to question those powers.

let me ask you this;

if a national emergency costs the taxpayers one cent where does Trump get the money ?

From the military construction budget which has about $10.5 billion in it mostly for military housing.

keep trying ..

Can Trump ‘emergency’ turn border wall into military construction project?

Your link does not claim the President can't use funds from the military construction budget, just that the writer doesn't like the idea. Try this.

Emergency presidential powers are dramatic, and range from suspending all laws regulating chemical and biological weapons, including the ban on human testing (50 U.S.C. § 1515, passed 1969); to suspending any Clean Air Act implementation plan or excess emissions penalty upon petition of a state governor (42 U.S.C. (f) § 7410 (f), passed 1977); to authorizing and constructing military construction projects (10 U.S.C. (a) § 2808 (a), passed 1982) using any existing defense appropriations for such military constructions ($10.4 billion in FY2018[16]); to drafting any retired Coast Guard officers (14 U.S.C. § 331, passed 1963) or enlisted members (14 U.S.C. § 359, passed 1949) into active duty.

Title 50 of the United States Code - Wikipedia

yes it does - if funds are available

determining if Trumps emergency is a matter of Military or Law Enforcement will be in the courts for years ...

 

[Siete]

Trump abuses his power and makes it to a military issue -

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN THEN?

Such a move is sure to spark a flood of legal challenges questioning the president's authority as well as whether the situation at the border really constitutes an emergency. Trump has been trying to press that case in recent days, insisting the situation qualifies as a security and humanitarian "crisis."

Of course it's a military situation. The US military is force to guard the border with Mexico because we do not yet have the smart fence the President wants to build and that the Democrats wanted to build right up until President Trump said he wanted it, too.

so now you move the wall goal post to "smart fence"

neither Trump OR his drones know what they want ..... THEY JUST WANT SOMETHING- ANYTHING.

soooooo pathetic its beyond pathetic.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The Court did not question Truman's power to declare a national emergency, it denied him the right to confiscate private property since he had not provided adequate justification under existing law to do so. At the time, there was no National Emergency Act so what powers the president had under a national emergency was unclear. Today, the National Emergencies Act details exactly what powers the president can exercise under a national emergency, so the Court has no jurisdiction to question those powers.

let me ask you this;

if a national emergency costs the taxpayers one cent where does Trump get the money ?

From the military construction budget which has about $10.5 billion in it mostly for military housing.

keep trying ..

Can Trump ‘emergency’ turn border wall into military construction project?

Your link does not claim the President can't use funds from the military construction budget, just that the writer doesn't like the idea. Try this.

Emergency presidential powers are dramatic, and range from suspending all laws regulating chemical and biological weapons, including the ban on human testing (50 U.S.C. § 1515, passed 1969); to suspending any Clean Air Act implementation plan or excess emissions penalty upon petition of a state governor (42 U.S.C. (f) § 7410 (f), passed 1977); to authorizing and constructing military construction projects (10 U.S.C. (a) § 2808 (a), passed 1982) using any existing defense appropriations for such military constructions ($10.4 billion in FY2018[16]); to drafting any retired Coast Guard officers (14 U.S.C. § 331, passed 1963) or enlisted members (14 U.S.C. § 359, passed 1949) into active duty.

Title 50 of the United States Code - Wikipedia

yes it does - if funds are available

determining if Trumps emergency is a matter of Military or Law Enforcement will be in the courts for years ...

No it won't because US military forces are required to guard the border with Mexico because of the absence of the smart fence both President Trump and the Democrats have proposed.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Trump abuses his power and makes it to a military issue -

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN THEN?

Such a move is sure to spark a flood of legal challenges questioning the president's authority as well as whether the situation at the border really constitutes an emergency. Trump has been trying to press that case in recent days, insisting the situation qualifies as a security and humanitarian "crisis."

Of course it's a military situation. The US military is force to guard the border with Mexico because we do not yet have the smart fence the President wants to build and that the Democrats wanted to build right up until President Trump said he wanted it, too.

so now you move the wall goal post to "smart fence"

neither Trump OR his drones know what they want ..... THEY JUST WANT SOMETHING- ANYTHING.

soooooo pathetic its beyond pathetic.

The President has been saying for years that he wanted a smart fence similar to the one Israel has built on its border with Sinai.

 

[Siete]

It does not. A law cannot override the Constitution. Could Congress pass a law removing judges on a majority vote instead of impeachment as outlined in the Constitution? Truman's attempt to invoke a national emergency was overturned by the courts and building a wall would be a assault on our Constitution. The courts have to intervene and make this determination.

The Court did not question Truman's power to declare a national emergency, it denied him the right to confiscate private property since he had not provided adequate justification under existing law to do so. At the time, there was no National Emergency Act so what powers the president had under a national emergency was unclear. Today, the National Emergencies Act details exactly what powers the president can exercise under a national emergency, so the Court has no jurisdiction to question those powers.

let me ask you this;

if a national emergency costs the taxpayers one cent where does Trump get the money ?

From the military construction budget which has about $10.5 billion in it mostly for military housing.

keep trying ..

Can Trump ‘emergency’ turn border wall into military construction project?

Your link does not claim the President can't use funds from the military construction budget, just that the writer doesn't like the idea. Try this.

Emergency presidential powers are dramatic, and range from suspending all laws regulating chemical and biological weapons, including the ban on human testing (50 U.S.C. § 1515, passed 1969); to suspending any Clean Air Act implementation plan or excess emissions penalty upon petition of a state governor (42 U.S.C. (f) § 7410 (f), passed 1977); to authorizing and constructing military construction projects (10 U.S.C. (a) § 2808 (a), passed 1982) using any existing defense appropriations for such military constructions ($10.4 billion in FY2018[16]); to drafting any retired Coast Guard officers (14 U.S.C. § 331, passed 1963) or enlisted members (14 U.S.C. § 359, passed 1949) into active duty.

Title 50 of the United States Code - Wikipedia

from my link -

According to the statute, if the president declares an emergency "that requires use of the armed forces," the Defense Secretary "may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces."

Pentagon budget officials are currently analyzing the 2019 construction budget to determine how many unobligated dollars would be available to use for the wall in the event Trump settles on a declaration. Under the provision, only those construction budget funds that are not already obligated to other construction projects could be used for the wall.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

On Tuesday, Fox News Shep Smith quickly fact-checked President Donald Trump for continuing the narrative that a wall at the US-Mexico border is already being built.

At a rally in El Paso, Texas, Trump proclaimed that the wall was being built, despite the fact that lawmakers reached an agreement over the border wall that if approved would prevent another government shut down.

'It's not true': Fox News' Shep Smith wallops Trump for continuing to lie about his border wall

 

[toomuchtime_]

The Court did not question Truman's power to declare a national emergency, it denied him the right to confiscate private property since he had not provided adequate justification under existing law to do so. At the time, there was no National Emergency Act so what powers the president had under a national emergency was unclear. Today, the National Emergencies Act details exactly what powers the president can exercise under a national emergency, so the Court has no jurisdiction to question those powers.

let me ask you this;

if a national emergency costs the taxpayers one cent where does Trump get the money ?

From the military construction budget which has about $10.5 billion in it mostly for military housing.

keep trying ..

Can Trump ‘emergency’ turn border wall into military construction project?

Your link does not claim the President can't use funds from the military construction budget, just that the writer doesn't like the idea. Try this.

Emergency presidential powers are dramatic, and range from suspending all laws regulating chemical and biological weapons, including the ban on human testing (50 U.S.C. § 1515, passed 1969); to suspending any Clean Air Act implementation plan or excess emissions penalty upon petition of a state governor (42 U.S.C. (f) § 7410 (f), passed 1977); to authorizing and constructing military construction projects (10 U.S.C. (a) § 2808 (a), passed 1982) using any existing defense appropriations for such military constructions ($10.4 billion in FY2018[16]); to drafting any retired Coast Guard officers (14 U.S.C. § 331, passed 1963) or enlisted members (14 U.S.C. § 359, passed 1949) into active duty.

Title 50 of the United States Code - Wikipedia

from my link -

According to the statute, if the president declares an emergency "that requires use of the armed forces," the Defense Secretary "may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces."

Pentagon budget officials are currently analyzing the 2019 construction budget to determine how many unobligated dollars would be available to use for the wall in the event Trump settles on a declaration. Under the provision, only those construction budget funds that are not already obligated to other construction projects could be used for the wall.

Right, the accountants are hard at it to find what funds are available to build the smart fence. the term, obligated, is the key term. If money has been designated for a project but nothing has been started, it is not obligated.

 

[Siete]

if there was a national emergency how long has Trump been waiting to declare one - how much longer will he wait to declare A NATIONAL EMERGENCY ?????????

Goldilocks doesnt have a magic wand, and one isn't going to fly out of his ass and build a whateverthefuck he's willing to settle for.

 

[toomuchtime_]

if there was a national emergency how long has Trump been waiting to declare one - how much longer will he wait to declare A NATIONAL EMERGENCY ?????????

Goldilocks doesnt have a magic wand, and one isn't going to fly out of his ass and build a whateverthefuck he's willing to settle for.

The national emergency is that the Democrats have paralyzed Congress and so the President has to take action to safeguard our southern border without Congress.

 

[BlindBoo]

supporters expect him to build the smart fence on the border

Yep I remember the rally chants, clearly

"Build that smart Fence" "Build that smart Fence" "Build that smart Fence" "Build that smart Fence"

And who's gonna pay for it?

"If Mexico wont, we will" "If Mexico wont, we will" "If Mexico wont, we will" "If Mexico wont, we will"

You are correct that Mexico won't pay for it, and that seems to be a really important point for Democrats but it is not important to Trump supporters, so it has no bearing on the issue.

Oh come now, it's Trump himself who cemented the two together. The Trumpettes recited that line with great enthusiasm, when it was humiliating to our neighbor to the south, it's only fitting that it should becomes a sticking point that craters Donnie's Dumb as Dirt Agenda.

 

[toomuchtime_]

supporters expect him to build the smart fence on the border

Yep I remember the rally chants, clearly

"Build that smart Fence" "Build that smart Fence" "Build that smart Fence" "Build that smart Fence"

And who's gonna pay for it?

"If Mexico wont, we will" "If Mexico wont, we will" "If Mexico wont, we will" "If Mexico wont, we will"

You are correct that Mexico won't pay for it, and that seems to be a really important point for Democrats but it is not important to Trump supporters, so it has no bearing on the issue.

Oh come now, it's Trump himself who cemented the two together. The Trumpettes recited that line with great enthusiasm, when it was humiliating to our neighbor to the south, it's only fitting that it should becomes a sticking point that craters Donnie's Dumb as Dirt Agenda.

Clearly, it's a sticking point for you, but just as clearly it's not for Trump supporters.

 

[Siete]

RW bigots just cant manage to wrap their single cell brain around the fact that Trump and his horseshit wall rhetoric in nothing more than just that ...

after all this time if Trump could have found ONE SINGLE WAY to build anything that remotely resembles a wall WITHOUT needing Congress or skipping the courts, you can bet his fat ass he would have done it.

 

[BlindBoo]

These national emergencies have been in the foreign policy arena and none of them directly contradict the Constitution. The Congress cannot give a President the powers that are delegated to Congress by the Constitution such as the power of the purse. They did not give him the power to as Justin Amish tweeted, "No. @POTUS can’t claim emergency powers for non-emergency actions whenever Congress doesn’t legislate the way he wants."

Just because he cannot get money from Congress for a wall does not make it a national emergency to do a end run around Congress. Just because you want something does not mean a compromise has to include it. Around a year ago when Democrats wanted DACA as part of a compromise bill, Republicans refused to include DACA in a compromise. Gridlock is not a justification for using a national emergency to do a end-run around Congress. If you could, Obama could have declared a national emergency to go around a Republican Congress.

Regardless of what you or Justin Amish think a national emergency should be, under the National Emergencies Act a national emergency is anything the President says it is, and neither Congress nor the Courts have jurisdiction over what constitutes a national emergency, and since the law gives the President 123 extraordinary powers under a national emergency to use the funds in the DoD military construction budget ($10.5 billion, mostly now designated for military housing) to build the smart fence, there are no legitimate legal grounds on which to challenge him. There are only two ways to prevent the President from securing our southern border under a declaration of national emergency, rally 2/3 of each house of Congress to overturn the National Emergencies Act, or impeach and convict the President. Of course, both will fail.

Barack Obama declared 13 states of emergency in order to gain extraordinary powers and not one of them dealt with a threat to American people or American property; all of them dealt with seizing the property of or blocking commerce with people who were party to foreign conflicts in which the US was not involved. None of these issues was so time sensitive that he couldn't have gone to Congress to seek their approval, but given his poor relations with Congress, he probably would have had to undergo the same kind of obstruction by Congress on each of the EO's issued under these national (non)emergencies.

The court fight would not be over the national emergency but whether that gives the President the power to ignore the Constitution which gives Congress the power of the purse. That cannot be legislated away. That gives the Courts the right to intervene.

Barack Obama's national emergencies did not directly contradict the Constitution in a way that Trump's would.

--------------------------------------------- in your OPINION BBee .

In reality. Whether a President can override the Constitution by calling a national emergency is the issue. It does clash with the Constitution which grants the power of the purse to Congress.

There is no Constitutional issue. Congress passed the National Emergencies Act in 1976 which give the president the power to declare a national emergency whenever he likes and detailing 123 emergency powers he can exercise without approval by Congress and amended the Act in 1985, so that Congress could not rescind a national emergency without the agreement of the president. The law only imposes certain procedural requirements on the president and as long as he follow them and stays within the emergency powers detailed in the Act, neither Congress nor the Courts has any jurisdiction over what he does.

A veto proof joint resolution in congress would override it.

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't actually define what constitute High Crimes and Misdemeanors either. Some in Congress might just say that declaring an emergency where no emergency actually exists in order to pursue a purely political agenda is an abuse of power.

 

[Siete]

Regardless of what you or Justin Amish think a national emergency should be, under the National Emergencies Act a national emergency is anything the President says it is, and neither Congress nor the Courts have jurisdiction over what constitutes a national emergency, and since the law gives the President 123 extraordinary powers under a national emergency to use the funds in the DoD military construction budget ($10.5 billion, mostly now designated for military housing) to build the smart fence, there are no legitimate legal grounds on which to challenge him. There are only two ways to prevent the President from securing our southern border under a declaration of national emergency, rally 2/3 of each house of Congress to overturn the National Emergencies Act, or impeach and convict the President. Of course, both will fail.

Barack Obama declared 13 states of emergency in order to gain extraordinary powers and not one of them dealt with a threat to American people or American property; all of them dealt with seizing the property of or blocking commerce with people who were party to foreign conflicts in which the US was not involved. None of these issues was so time sensitive that he couldn't have gone to Congress to seek their approval, but given his poor relations with Congress, he probably would have had to undergo the same kind of obstruction by Congress on each of the EO's issued under these national (non)emergencies.

The court fight would not be over the national emergency but whether that gives the President the power to ignore the Constitution which gives Congress the power of the purse. That cannot be legislated away. That gives the Courts the right to intervene.

Barack Obama's national emergencies did not directly contradict the Constitution in a way that Trump's would.

--------------------------------------------- in your OPINION BBee .

In reality. Whether a President can override the Constitution by calling a national emergency is the issue. It does clash with the Constitution which grants the power of the purse to Congress.

There is no Constitutional issue. Congress passed the National Emergencies Act in 1976 which give the president the power to declare a national emergency whenever he likes and detailing 123 emergency powers he can exercise without approval by Congress and amended the Act in 1985, so that Congress could not rescind a national emergency without the agreement of the president. The law only imposes certain procedural requirements on the president and as long as he follow them and stays within the emergency powers detailed in the Act, neither Congress nor the Courts has any jurisdiction over what he does.

A veto proof joint resolution in congress would override it.

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't actually define what constitute High Crimes and Misdemeanors either. Some in Congress might just say that declaring an emergency where no emergency actually exists in order to pursue a purely political agenda is an abuse of power.

and off to court we go ...

 

[toomuchtime_]

Regardless of what you or Justin Amish think a national emergency should be, under the National Emergencies Act a national emergency is anything the President says it is, and neither Congress nor the Courts have jurisdiction over what constitutes a national emergency, and since the law gives the President 123 extraordinary powers under a national emergency to use the funds in the DoD military construction budget ($10.5 billion, mostly now designated for military housing) to build the smart fence, there are no legitimate legal grounds on which to challenge him. There are only two ways to prevent the President from securing our southern border under a declaration of national emergency, rally 2/3 of each house of Congress to overturn the National Emergencies Act, or impeach and convict the President. Of course, both will fail.

Barack Obama declared 13 states of emergency in order to gain extraordinary powers and not one of them dealt with a threat to American people or American property; all of them dealt with seizing the property of or blocking commerce with people who were party to foreign conflicts in which the US was not involved. None of these issues was so time sensitive that he couldn't have gone to Congress to seek their approval, but given his poor relations with Congress, he probably would have had to undergo the same kind of obstruction by Congress on each of the EO's issued under these national (non)emergencies.

The court fight would not be over the national emergency but whether that gives the President the power to ignore the Constitution which gives Congress the power of the purse. That cannot be legislated away. That gives the Courts the right to intervene.

Barack Obama's national emergencies did not directly contradict the Constitution in a way that Trump's would.

--------------------------------------------- in your OPINION BBee .

In reality. Whether a President can override the Constitution by calling a national emergency is the issue. It does clash with the Constitution which grants the power of the purse to Congress.

There is no Constitutional issue. Congress passed the National Emergencies Act in 1976 which give the president the power to declare a national emergency whenever he likes and detailing 123 emergency powers he can exercise without approval by Congress and amended the Act in 1985, so that Congress could not rescind a national emergency without the agreement of the president. The law only imposes certain procedural requirements on the president and as long as he follow them and stays within the emergency powers detailed in the Act, neither Congress nor the Courts has any jurisdiction over what he does.

A veto proof joint resolution in congress would override it.

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't actually define what constitute High Crimes and Misdemeanors either. Some in Congress might just say that declaring an emergency where no emergency actually exists in order to pursue a purely political agenda is an abuse of power.

A veto proof majority in both houses could overturn the National Emergencies Act and an impeachment and conviction of the President and the VP could also end the the national emergency, but neither of these is going to happen and there are no other ways to stop it.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The court fight would not be over the national emergency but whether that gives the President the power to ignore the Constitution which gives Congress the power of the purse. That cannot be legislated away. That gives the Courts the right to intervene.

Barack Obama's national emergencies did not directly contradict the Constitution in a way that Trump's would.

--------------------------------------------- in your OPINION BBee .

In reality. Whether a President can override the Constitution by calling a national emergency is the issue. It does clash with the Constitution which grants the power of the purse to Congress.

There is no Constitutional issue. Congress passed the National Emergencies Act in 1976 which give the president the power to declare a national emergency whenever he likes and detailing 123 emergency powers he can exercise without approval by Congress and amended the Act in 1985, so that Congress could not rescind a national emergency without the agreement of the president. The law only imposes certain procedural requirements on the president and as long as he follow them and stays within the emergency powers detailed in the Act, neither Congress nor the Courts has any jurisdiction over what he does.

A veto proof joint resolution in congress would override it.

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't actually define what constitute High Crimes and Misdemeanors either. Some in Congress might just say that declaring an emergency where no emergency actually exists in order to pursue a purely political agenda is an abuse of power.

and off to court we go ...

I guess that will play well to the Democratic base, but perhaps not too well to the rest of the country.

 

[Siete]

The court fight would not be over the national emergency but whether that gives the President the power to ignore the Constitution which gives Congress the power of the purse. That cannot be legislated away. That gives the Courts the right to intervene.

Barack Obama's national emergencies did not directly contradict the Constitution in a way that Trump's would.

--------------------------------------------- in your OPINION BBee .

In reality. Whether a President can override the Constitution by calling a national emergency is the issue. It does clash with the Constitution which grants the power of the purse to Congress.

There is no Constitutional issue. Congress passed the National Emergencies Act in 1976 which give the president the power to declare a national emergency whenever he likes and detailing 123 emergency powers he can exercise without approval by Congress and amended the Act in 1985, so that Congress could not rescind a national emergency without the agreement of the president. The law only imposes certain procedural requirements on the president and as long as he follow them and stays within the emergency powers detailed in the Act, neither Congress nor the Courts has any jurisdiction over what he does.

A veto proof joint resolution in congress would override it.

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't actually define what constitute High Crimes and Misdemeanors either. Some in Congress might just say that declaring an emergency where no emergency actually exists in order to pursue a purely political agenda is an abuse of power.

A veto proof majority in both houses could overturn the National Emergencies Act and an impeachment and conviction of the President and the VP could also end the the national emergency, but neither of these is going to happen and there are no other ways to stop it.

which brings us back to the title of the thread ...............

 

[BlindBoo]

The court fight would not be over the national emergency but whether that gives the President the power to ignore the Constitution which gives Congress the power of the purse. That cannot be legislated away. That gives the Courts the right to intervene.

Barack Obama's national emergencies did not directly contradict the Constitution in a way that Trump's would.

--------------------------------------------- in your OPINION BBee .

In reality. Whether a President can override the Constitution by calling a national emergency is the issue. It does clash with the Constitution which grants the power of the purse to Congress.

There is no Constitutional issue. Congress passed the National Emergencies Act in 1976 which give the president the power to declare a national emergency whenever he likes and detailing 123 emergency powers he can exercise without approval by Congress and amended the Act in 1985, so that Congress could not rescind a national emergency without the agreement of the president. The law only imposes certain procedural requirements on the president and as long as he follow them and stays within the emergency powers detailed in the Act, neither Congress nor the Courts has any jurisdiction over what he does.

A veto proof joint resolution in congress would override it.

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't actually define what constitute High Crimes and Misdemeanors either. Some in Congress might just say that declaring an emergency where no emergency actually exists in order to pursue a purely political agenda is an abuse of power.

A veto proof majority in both houses could overturn the National Emergencies Act and an impeachment and conviction of the President and the VP could also end the the national emergency, but neither of these is going to happen and there are no other ways to stop it.

They can end a specific declared national emergency.

Let him declare one to build his wall and see how public opinion goes. Then we'll see how long the GOP stays Trumpublicans. They turned on Nixon too......

 

[toomuchtime_]

--------------------------------------------- in your OPINION BBee .

In reality. Whether a President can override the Constitution by calling a national emergency is the issue. It does clash with the Constitution which grants the power of the purse to Congress.

There is no Constitutional issue. Congress passed the National Emergencies Act in 1976 which give the president the power to declare a national emergency whenever he likes and detailing 123 emergency powers he can exercise without approval by Congress and amended the Act in 1985, so that Congress could not rescind a national emergency without the agreement of the president. The law only imposes certain procedural requirements on the president and as long as he follow them and stays within the emergency powers detailed in the Act, neither Congress nor the Courts has any jurisdiction over what he does.

A veto proof joint resolution in congress would override it.

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't actually define what constitute High Crimes and Misdemeanors either. Some in Congress might just say that declaring an emergency where no emergency actually exists in order to pursue a purely political agenda is an abuse of power.

A veto proof majority in both houses could overturn the National Emergencies Act and an impeachment and conviction of the President and the VP could also end the the national emergency, but neither of these is going to happen and there are no other ways to stop it.

which brings us back to the title of the thread ...............

Which is false. The fence will be built even as Democrats continue to whine about and file frivolous lawsuits about it and the government will not be shut down because both parties will keep it open with short term resolutions to continue funding under the last budget.